1. Field of the Invention
This invention pertains generally to lottery-based manufacturing devices, systems, methods and electronic aids to lottery-based games. More particularly, the invention is a manufacturing and distribution system for printing “on-demand” lottery tickets.
2. The Prior Art
Traditional pull-tab systems utilizes paper tickets which can be “broken open” to reveal a pattern of symbols which may equate to a winning prize. The tickets are arranged into finite sets called “deals,” “decks” or “draws”. Each finite set has a predetermined number of tickets at various prize levels. Therefore the total price of the deck is known (since the tickets are sold for a uniform amount) and the total value of the prizes is known, so the seller of the tickets knows the total profit to be made on the sale of the deck. These decks of tickets are manufactured and printed at a central location, and put into a form usable by standard dispensing machines, typically in rolls or stacks. These rolls are then physically distributed from the central location to each vending site for dispensing. Tickets are dispensed by clerks or vending machines to customers, who peel open a layer hiding the prize contents to reveal what their winning value is, if any. Winning tickets are redeemable for the value of the win. Examples of such implementations are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,290,033 entitled “GAMING MACHINE AND COUPONS” to Bittner, et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,348,299 entitled “ELECTRONIC GAMING APPARATUS” to Clapper, Jr.
There are several disadvantages associated with this prior art manufacturing and distribution method for pull-tab tickets. First, the vending sites that dispense the pull-tab tickets are required to carry sufficient inventories of rolls or stacks of tickets to provide the dispensing counter and/or dispensing devices with sufficient quantities of tickets for dispensing to purchasing consumers. Carrying such inventories exposes the site operator to substantial risk of loss due to theft.
Another primary disadvantage associated with prior art systems is that of security which arises due to the relatively easy access to the stacks or rolls of pull-tab tickets by employees of the vending sites. For example, the risk of collusion between a vending site employee and a customer may arise where the employee has access to the stacks or rolls of pre-printed tickets. In such case, the employee may attempt to selectively sell a particular customer certain tickets which the employee believes are “winners,” where for example, the employee realizes that certain winning tickets are dispensed at particular intervals. Similarly, the employee may sell what the employee believes to be losing tickets to other customers, and reserve winning tickets for particular customer(s). Such practices are unfair to customers participating in the pull-tab lotteries and diminishes the trustworthiness of and player participation in such pull-tab games, thereby resulting in reduces revenue for both the pull-tab manufacturer and the vending site operator.
Several attempts have been made to implement lottery-based games in a purely or substantially electronic form (i.e., where the customer is not provided a printed lottery ticket). Examples of such implementations are described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,494,179 entitled “AUTOMATIC LOTTERY SYSTEM” to Troy, et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 5,324,035 entitled “VIDEO GAMING SYSTEM WITH FIXED POOL OF WINNING PLAYS AND GLOBAL POOL ACCESS” to Morris, et al. While these implementations provide “on-demand” play of lottery games in electronic format, traditional customers of paper ticket games do not find the electronic implementations as fun or exciting. In some cases, players of electronic versions of pull-tabs or lottery games have a distrust for the electronic format of the game, some indicating a fear that the computer which manages the game is “cheating.”
Furthermore, these purely electronic or substantially electronic implementations are also considered “electronic facsimiles” of lottery games which may fall out of the definition of Class II Indian gaming devices as is known in the art and as is represented by current federal case law. Accordingly, such implementations require vending site operators to enter into a compact with the state of jurisdiction before implementing such lottery games in electronic form. Establishing such compacts is time consuming and often fails to be negotiated to fruition due to disagreements about terms. Additionally, under a compact the vending site operator is required to pay the state of jurisdiction a fee resulting in decreased revenue for the vending site operator. Lottery-based devices implemented as electronic aids, however, may be operated in a jurisdiction without the requirement of a compact and would thereby ease implementation by a prospective vending site operator.
Prior art printing systems are described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,677,553 entitled “SECURE PLACEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ON A CIRCULATED BLANK TICKET” and U.S. Pat. No. 5,772,510 entitled “LOTTERY TICKET AND SYSTEM.” In each of the above implementations, the ticket media is distributed, either to potential customers or clerk operators. As described in the U.S. Pat. No. 5,772,510, the prior distribution or supply of ticket media to potential customers allows the player the player to choose one of a plurality of lottery ticket types. The player must choose a game type by selecting the appropriate ticket media, and insert the ticket media into the machine for printing thereon. As is known in the art, a primary disadvantage of such ticket media distribution is that the ticket media is susceptible to tampering and/or fraud. Additionally, for each different game type, a partially completed and encoded ticket media must be provided in order to distinguish the game type requested by the patron. Such a system is particularly cumbersome for players, and potentially reduces frequency at which games are played.
Another example prior art pull-tab gaming machine is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,580,311 entitled “ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINE AND METHOD” to Haste. The Haste machine is limited to printing tickets for game records stored within the machine. This arrangement is not suitable where the game records are to be distributed via a plurality of machines, and is not suitable for use in allowing multiple players to play a plurality of machines and draw from the same pool of lottery tickets. Accordingly the amusement and competition associated with playing fixed-pool games (such as lotteries) among a group of players are diminished.
The needs and concerns outlined above are also present in other lottery-based games, including state lotteries. Accordingly, there is a need for a pull-tab and/or lottery ticket manufacturing and distribution system and method which overcomes these and other disadvantages associated with the prior art.